SHANMUGHAM Vs. GOBICHETTIPALAYAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for eviction the defendant tenant Shanmugham has filed the Second Appeal. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but the appellate Court decreed the suit.

(2.) THE facts: THE plaintiff Municipality constructed houses for its employees. THEre were surplus houses and those houses were let out to non-employees also. THE defendant is one such person who was allotted the. suit house. On a subsequent direction from the Government the non-employees were required to vacate the houses. According to the plaintiff-Municipality the defendants tenancy was terminated and he was asked-to vacate but he did not vacate and therefore the Municipality had to file the suit.

(3.) AS regards the second point, according to the plaintiff, as seen from the plaint paragraph 8 relating to cause of action, for the suit, two notices issued by the Municipality on 12. 11. 1976 and 5. 4. 1977 are said to be notices of termination of tenancy. There can be only one notice of termination of tenancy on which the plaintiff must rely on. Now the notice dated 12. 11. 1976 is marked as Exa. 6 and the notice dated 5. 4. 1977 is marked as exa-9. Exa. 6 is in fact a letter sent in reply to a notice issued by the advocate of the defendant dated 21. 10. 1976 which in turn was sent in reply to a notice of the Municipality dated 14. 10. 1976. In this notice or letter Ex. A-6, the Municipality has replied to many contentions raised in the notice issued by the defendants advocate. Under Ex. A-6, the Advocate of the defendant has. been requested to advise his client to vacate the premises by the first of December, 1976. This can by no means be held to be a notice determining the lease issued to the defendant. 7a. Ex. A9 is a notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant wherein it is written once again after repudiating the defendants contentions that the lease has also been terminated under S. 106 of the transfer of Property. Then it is stated that the defendant is required to hand over vacant possession to the Municipality on or before 1. 5. 1977. From this it is seen that this notice only states that the lease has been already terminated, i. e. , the lease is not terminated in this notice. Then there is nothing to the effect that the lease is terminated by the end of any month. In this notice at the top a notice dated 14. 10. 1976 has been described as one of the three items of references, the said notice dated 14. 10. 1976 has been marked as Exa4. In this notice it has been stated that the defendant is required to vacate the house within 15 days of receipt of the notice (Ex. A4 ). It appears to me that when it is stated in Exa-9 that the tenancy has also been terminated the Municipality referred to only Exa4 notice. But this notice has not been stated in the plaint as a notice of termination by the plaintiff. Further in this notice (Exa-4)it is simply stated as aforesaid that the defendant is required to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and it is not stated about termination of tenancy by the end of any tenancy month. Therefore Ex. A-4 also is not a proper notice of termination. A reading of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly shows that a month to month tenancy is terminable by 15 days notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. This means the plaintiff must say in the notice by the end of which tenancy month the tenancy is terminated and there shall be 15 days clear notice. Certainly Exa-9 does not satisfy these requirements. The same is the case with Exa6 and further, as already seen, it is sent to the advocate of the defendant and not to the defendant or to any of his family members or his servant or affixed on any conspicuous part of the house in question as laid down in the second part of S. 106. AS already seen above, even Exa-4 also is not a proper notice of termination because it is not at all stated that the tenancy is terminated by the end of any particular month. True, as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff-Municipality, notice of termination shall be liberally construed. But when any of the fundamental requirements of law is not satisfied, the plaintiff cannot be helped. Therefore, I hold that there is no proper and valid notice of termination. For this defect the suit suffers.